UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

d) The assessee trust has contravened the provisions of section 11(2) of the IT Act and consequently nothing contained in the provisions of Section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of assessee.(Para 5.8 of the order) Therefore the appellant appeals for set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 and order for allowing the exemption u/s 11

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 02/12/2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

delayed digital filing of Form 10. 29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear in mind the underlying intent of Section 11(2) and the submission of Form 10 in connection therewith which were aspects succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (2001) 2 SCC 128/[2001] 114 Taxman 255/247

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in submissions of appeal. 2. The appellant trust was created on 26.12.2015 and application for registration u/s 11/12 was made on 20.1.2016. The ld. CIT, Exemption had erred in granting exemption w.e.f 10.6.2016 as against 20.01.2016 being the date of application. 3. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in submissions of appeal. 2. The appellant trust was created on 26.12.2015 and application for registration u/s 11/12 was made on 20.1.2016. The ld. CIT, Exemption had erred in granting exemption w.e.f 10.6.2016 as against 20.01.2016 being the date of application. 3. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST ,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee herein is a charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a dental college under the name “Ahmedabad Dental College & Hospital”. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 22.3.1996 subject to certain conditions

GLOBAL HEALTH RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee herein is a charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a medical college under the name “M/s Pacific Institute of Medical Science” in Udaipur. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 05.3.2001, subject

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days

SMT. SARLA SINGHVI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 19.01.2023 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred on facts and in law while

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur dated 28.06.2019 [here in after (Ld. CIT(A))] for assessment year 2009-10. 2 Smt. Jaya Mogra 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29.09.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 208 days in filing of the appeal

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

condoned the delay looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ignore the communication which was incumbent upon the CIT(E) to examine the explanation and arrive at conclusion as to whether the explanation was satisfactory, if not satisfactory, has to communicate the assessee in view of 263 ITR page

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 20.09.2018. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-1 has also erred on the facts and in law in not allowing brought

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 15.09.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 2 days in filing the appeal by the assessee

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur dated 31.07.2018 [here in after referred as (CIT(A))] for assessment year 2004-05 which in turn arise from the order dated 28.03.2013 passed 2 M/s Sunil & Company under section

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur dated 10.02.2021 [here in after (ld. PCIT)] for assessment year 2017-18 passed under section 263 of the Act, which in turn arise from the order dated 30.03.2019 passed under section